Post by davidsf on Oct 5, 2020 12:21:12 GMT -8
You all remember Kim Davis: the former Rowan County, KY clerk who refused to grant a marriage licenses to a homosexual couple, citing her belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. Well, David Ermold sued Davis who argued that she was protected from lawsuits under qualified immunity. But a judge found her in contempt of court and jailed her for five days. Ermold won the lawsuit, Davis appealed it, and the Supreme Court refused to reopen the case... which is why it is back in the news.
Reaching back even further, you will also recall Obergefell v Hodges, from 2015: The “celebrated” case from 2015 that legalized same-sex marriage. Even though Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas agreed that SCOTUS should not take up the case, they argued that the Supreme Court needs to “fix” a central error in Obergefell v. Hodges, because the Court’s ruling supports anti-religious bigotry.
interestinger and interestinger.
ACCORDING TO AN ARTICLE IN PJMEDIA,
And
It will be interesting to see if anything comes of it.
not to offend my Christian brothers, but apart from the “permission” Obergefell gives the anti-Christian bigots, I don’t care what they do, even including homosexual marriage. The way I figure it now, absent a change of heart and a turning to God, homosexuals are lost anyway. Homosexuality is a sin neither greater nor lesser than any other sin so it would be inconsistent to object to homosexuals marrying but not to thieves or adulterers marrying.
that said, however, I agree with Justices Alito and Thomas: They created this bigotry, they need to fix it. I also think Congress should do their job here, but that’s too much to expect.
Reaching back even further, you will also recall Obergefell v Hodges, from 2015: The “celebrated” case from 2015 that legalized same-sex marriage. Even though Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas agreed that SCOTUS should not take up the case, they argued that the Supreme Court needs to “fix” a central error in Obergefell v. Hodges, because the Court’s ruling supports anti-religious bigotry.
interestinger and interestinger.
ACCORDING TO AN ARTICLE IN PJMEDIA,
Alito and Thomas concurred with the judgment not to hear the case, but Thomas wrote (and Alito joined) a powerful condemnation of the way Obergefell mainstreams hostility toward conservative Christians and others who hold that marriage is between one man and one woman.
“Davis may have been one of the first victims of this Court’s cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision, but she will not be the last,” Thomas warned. “Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other antidiscrimination laws.”
Thomas argued that if Congress had passed a same-sex marriage law — rather than the Supreme Court declaring same-sex marriage legal by judicial fiat — the law may have included vital protections for religious freedom. Even if it had not included such protections, the First Amendment may have required them. Yet the way the Supreme Court created a right to same-sex marriage uniquely threatens traditional religious believers.
“Davis may have been one of the first victims of this Court’s cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision, but she will not be the last,” Thomas warned. “Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other antidiscrimination laws.”
Thomas argued that if Congress had passed a same-sex marriage law — rather than the Supreme Court declaring same-sex marriage legal by judicial fiat — the law may have included vital protections for religious freedom. Even if it had not included such protections, the First Amendment may have required them. Yet the way the Supreme Court created a right to same-sex marriage uniquely threatens traditional religious believers.
The Supreme Court justice warned that “Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss. For example, relying on Obergefell, one member of the Sixth Circuit panel in this case [Davis v. Ermold] described Davis’ sincerely held religious beliefs as ‘anti-homosexual animus.'”
“In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals,” Thomas explained. “This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as ‘disparag[ing]’ homosexuals and ‘diminish[ing] their personhood’ through ‘[d]ignitary wounds.'”
“Since Obergefell, parties have continually attempted to label people of good will as bigots merely for refusing to alter their religious beliefs in the wake of prevailing orthodoxy,” the justice noted.
“In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals,” Thomas explained. “This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as ‘disparag[ing]’ homosexuals and ‘diminish[ing] their personhood’ through ‘[d]ignitary wounds.'”
“Since Obergefell, parties have continually attempted to label people of good will as bigots merely for refusing to alter their religious beliefs in the wake of prevailing orthodoxy,” the justice noted.
not to offend my Christian brothers, but apart from the “permission” Obergefell gives the anti-Christian bigots, I don’t care what they do, even including homosexual marriage. The way I figure it now, absent a change of heart and a turning to God, homosexuals are lost anyway. Homosexuality is a sin neither greater nor lesser than any other sin so it would be inconsistent to object to homosexuals marrying but not to thieves or adulterers marrying.
that said, however, I agree with Justices Alito and Thomas: They created this bigotry, they need to fix it. I also think Congress should do their job here, but that’s too much to expect.